1 CGHC010052922023 2026:CGHC:31613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 260 of 2023 1 - Dhansingh Patel S/o Jhumuk Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kalgaon, Tahsil Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Satwantin Patel W/o Dhansingh Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kalgaon, Tahsil Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Shiv Bhanuprasad Rathiya S/o Basantram Rathiya Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 20 Bakruma, Vidhayak Mohalla, Dharamjaigarh, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ishwar Chandra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order o n Board 23.07.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. No.02/2023 – an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure for taking additional evidence on record. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have filed I.A. No. 02/2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to adduce additional evidence by bringing on record the certified copy of the ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle. He further submits that, as stated in the application, the original Registration Certificate had been seized by the police during the course of investigation and, since the appellants are illiterate, they could not obtain its certified copy at the relevant time. It is, therefore, prayed that the certified copy of the Registration Certificate be taken on record as additional evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants for taking additional evidence on record. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned with utmost circumspection. 5. It is not clear from the material available on record whether a charge-sheet was filed in the matter. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal framed Issue No. 3, namely, "Whether respondent Shivbhanuprasad Rathiya was the registered owner of the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-13-K-4749 on the date of the accident, i.e., 17.10.2019?" This itself demonstrates that the appellants/claimants were aware that the ownership of the offending vehicle was a material issue requiring proof. The claim petition remained pending before the Tribunal from 04.01.2021 till its adjudication on 19.10.2022, i.e., for about one year and nine months, thereby affording sufficient opportunity to the appellants/claimants to obtain and produce the 3 relevant document. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that they made any effort whatsoever to procure or bring the Registration Certificate on record during the pendency of the proceedings. In these circumstances, and having regard to the scope and requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court is of the considered view that the reasons assigned in I.A. No. 02/2023 do not constitute sufficient or satisfactory grounds for permitting the appellants to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage. Consequently, I.A. No. 02/2023 deserves to be, and is accordingly, dismissed. 6. Also heard on admission. 7. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 05/2021, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been dismissed. 8. The case of the appellants, in brief, is that on 17.10.2019, their son, Tuleshwar Patel, was riding motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-13-K-4749, owned by the respondent/non-applicant, along with his friend, Durgesh, from Village Kalgaon towards Tadoki Market. Near Godbinapal Camp on the Antagarh– Narayanpur Road, while attempting to overtake a truck, the 4 motorcycle allegedly slipped, as a result of which Tuleshwar Patel sustained grievous injuries to his head and chest and became unconscious. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to the Community Health Centre, Antagarh, for medical treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment a few hours later. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim petition, the present appeal has been preferred by the parents of the deceased. 9. The appellants, being the parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of the death of Tuleshwar Patel, aged about 22 years, in the motor accident that occurred on 17.10.2019. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal held that the accident had occurred while the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-13-K-4749. However, it further held that the appellants had failed to establish that the respondent was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Consequently, having regard to the requirements of Section 163-A of the Act, the learned Tribunal held that the claim petition was not maintainable and, accordingly, dismissed the same, holding that the appellants were not entitled to any compensation. 10.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim 5 petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, without properly determining the ownership of the offending vehicle. He submits that, had the issue of ownership been adjudicated in accordance with law, the appellants would have been held entitled to compensation. He, therefore, prays that the impugned award be set aside, the appeal be allowed, and appropriate compensation be awarded to the appellants in accordance with law. 11.Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 12. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 wherein the Supreme Court, relying upon its own case rendered in the matter of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, has specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. Para 9.4 is relevant for the purpose, which is reproduced as under: “9.4. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in Nigamma. In that case, the deceased was driving a motorcycle which was borrowed from its real owner and met with an accident by dashing against a bullock cart i.e. without involving any other 6 vehicle. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased against the real owner of the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased. To that, this Court has observed and held that since the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, Section 163-A of the Act cannot apply wherein the owner of the vehicle himself is involved. Consequently, it was held that the legal representatives of the deceased could not have claimed the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. Therefore, as such in the present case, the claimants could have even claimed the compensation and/or filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act against the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223, being a third party with respect to the offending vehicle. However, no claim under Section 163-A was filed against the driver, owner and/or insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223. It is an admitted position that the claim under Section 163-A of the Act was only against the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 which was borrowed by the deceased from the opponent-owner Bhagwan Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in Ningamma and as the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811, as rightly held by the High Court, the claim petition under Section 163- A of the Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be maintainable.” 13.In the present case, the deceased was not a third party in relation to the offending motorcycle; rather, he himself was riding and driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident. It is also not in dispute that the offending motorcycle was not covered by a valid insurance policy on the date of the accident. Further, it is an admitted position that no other vehicle was involved in the accident and that the accident occurred solely as a result of the 7 offending motorcycle having slipped. 14.Having applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not maintainable. The appeal preferred by the appellants is devoid of merit and, accordingly, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Saxena